Reinterpreting the Lakeland Fallout

I called it “Apostolic Fallout” a couple of weeks ago, and a few days after that I asked, “Is Bently Taking the ICA Down With Him?” Before I go further, I want to clarify that this is not really about Lakeland, or Bentley, except insofar as they illustrate symptoms of a larger problem. That’s where we need to focus our deep consideration at the moment. Leadership of the Lakeland revival-thing has been passed back to the local leaders and Bentley has properly been removed from ministry at least for a season. Now is the time to consider some bigger questions.

In my mind, one of the biggest questions at hand is what an apostle is in our present postmodern times and what their ministry looks like. First up is what’s being taught by Peter Wagner’s “International Coalition of Apostles” and its various arms. Now that the Bentley mess is coming unglued and the fallout is raining down upon the revival and the leaders who touched and endorsed it, I find it interesting to watch some of them run for cover.

About ten days ago, Barb the former leader wrote A Call For Honesty, in which she reviewed some of the post-Lakeland aftermath, particularly the involvement of Peter Wagner’s group of apostles. “This is what they have already said or will eventually say,” she predicted:

1) We knew of the problems (otherwise where would be their discernment?)
2) That they were not really putting their full endorsement on Todd
3) That it is a good thing for the body of Christ that they were brought in when they were. That only God knew this was brewing and he wanted to have His men in place to take care of the situation
4) And this is the biggest one: That it was actually their commissioning that allowed the truth of the facts of Todd’s life to come out. They will use this to put fear into people that the Apostolic anointing is not to be take lightly and “All will be revealed when alignment is brought into the Kingdom of God.” It is their great giftings that are to be revered. They are the heros. They are the leaders.

In my opinion, this will not hurt this new Apostolic movement. It will only strengthen it because the followers of this movement have already been prepped for how to follow the re-writing of history and the spin that they have to believe to belong.

The responses began from Wagner & Co., revealing something of a rift in the organization… as well as the predictable beginning of Wagner’s distancing of himself from Bentley after speaking so positively of him just short weeks earlier. The contrast is quite remarkable, as Grace outlines it very well, setting the quotations in juxtaposition to one another. When you read through it, the section “It was them, not me” will sound like outright falsehood. And yes, I agreed with most of what Barb wrote about the way this would be portrayed after-the-fact… and Grace outlines much of how the “spin” began. This week, Barb had to say “I Did Not Want To Be Right.” I hear that, but unfortunately, she is right in most of what she said (I believe this will hurt the ICA, but other than that…). What prompted her post this week was the second letter that came out from Peter Wagner (alternate link) on the aftermath of this whole affair.

C. Peter Wagner, who takes the title of “Presiding Apostle” over his coalition of “over 500 recognized apostles,” wrote in his update this week,

I have a private list of no fewer than 18 high-profile Christian leaders starting from the 1970s until Bentley for whom I took risks. For each one of them I took serious criticisms and in some cases personal hits even much more serious than I have received in this current case because I endorsed or partnered with or provided alignment for them. Some were typified as “crazy!” However, I can pretty much discern winners, although not always. My track record for the 18 is 72% emerged as real winners (you would know most of them), 17% ended up losers (including Bentley), and 11% indecisive. I’m sorry for the losers, but they prove I am not perfect. The point I am making is that I am no stranger to taking risks and living with the fallout.

There you have it. The pre-eminent apostle of the “Second Apostolic Age” has ruled: “Todd Bentley is a loser.”

It could be just me — or Barb and me — but I’m having a hard time finding a precedent for an apostolic ruling of another Christian leader as being a “loser.” I know Paul (who actually was an eminent apostle) had a beef with some who called themselves apostles and touted their ministry… but I don’t think he called them “losers,” or the applicable Koine Greek term, even though I’m sure he used some pretty strong language. Well, maybe he said something like that privately to Luke, followed by “And don’t blog write about that!” So even if he did say something so harsh, it was evidently not preceded by the phrase, “Okay, take a memo…” with the intent that it be publicly distributed far and wide through the Christian churches of the time. It just seems that this would not be characteristic of “apostolic” behaviour.

Paul did write to the Corinthians about some people he disagreed with but who claimed to be apostles — and claimed to somehow be better or more “right” as apostles than Paul and The Twelve. Somewhat sarcastically, he called them “super-apostles,” and went on to support his own apostolic claims in the opposite manner from the “super-apostles,” by extolling his sufferings. Where he did make what would be considered apostolic claims, he called himself a fool for speaking in this way. Wagner, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to be afflicted affected by this same sort of humility as the apostle Paul. Is this a fair comparison? Well, perhaps not. But I would expect anyone claiming apostolic authority today to make the effort to follow such a pattern. Instead, Wagner is offering statistical verification of his accuracy in discerning “winners” and “losers” in ministry as proof of his apostolic track record.

I believe it was back in my freshman year of Bible College, we were assigned in one of our courses to read and report upon Peter Wagner’s On the Crest of the Wave: Becoming a World Christian, then still a new book. A few of us discussed the book among ourselves as we read it. Being freshmen, we had no idea who Peter Wagner really was nor the esteem he held in missiological circles at the time. Being somewhat cynical, one of the impressions a few of us shared about the book was that the author seemed rather arrogant. A stand-out phrase for us was the paragraph that began, “Research I have done…” where he went on to offer the conclusion of the research without making any mention at all of the research methodology or actual statistics. Naturally, we faulted his conclusion… and among ourselves, we mocked, “Research *I* have done…!” Our discussions and further education eventually granted us further knowledge of Wagner’s reputation and credentials. I admit I felt that my initial reaction must have been rather foolish, but upon further review I have to say that I must have been closer to the truth at the time than I realized, and something of that assessment seems to have remained accurate even to the current time.

A quick check of the ICA website reveals the opening sentence: “ICA is currently the largest professional society of apostles known with nearly 500 apostles as active members who pay dues, attend an annual meeting, connect with each other, and provide mutual support and accountability.” (emphasis theirs). I didn’t know there were “professional” apostles as opposed to… hhmm… “lay apostles”? Or those who just didn’t renew their paid membership subscription? Examination of their literature on the site and in other writings (see Grace’s samples) suggests a very thorough classification of the types of apostles and their qualifications, which selectively include and exclude some of the biblical qualifications. The lengthy list of categories for apostleship strikes me as being so thoroughly modern that it’s almost laughable. Still, I wouldn’t have nearly such a problem with it if it were couched in verbiage stating that the classifications were merely Wagner’s functional descriptions, not authoritative in any way. Of course, as an apostle of the “convening” kind, perhaps he considers his descriptions, ipso-facto to be authoritative. He does say that the mere use of the title of apostle conveys some kind of power. Presumably, so does some kind of “alignment,” a concept that seems to appear on Wagner’s lips (or pen) almost out of thin air, and seems to mean something along the lines of placing oneself under the direction (think “control”) of another person… or something to this effect. (This is where Bentley came into the Wagner picture, or vice-versa.)

Let’s just say I’m skeptical, shall we? Am I saying that there is no present-day ministry of the apostle? No — I actually do believe in the continuation of apostolic ministry. It’s just that as depicted by some of these professional super-apostles, we aren’t seeing it. Perhaps some of the “amateurs” are more rightfully qualified… which would be, I suspect, closer to the actual facts of the matter.

My informal appeal to post-charismatic and missional bloggers for the month of September might be to spend some time thinking and writing on the forms of leadership (apostolic or otherwise) which we need to see in the church today. What characterizes this form of leadership? How do we recognize leaders, and how is their authority derived and exercised? There are a number of large and significant issues at play here, and I believe that this expression of what the ICA calls the “Second Apostolic Age” which “began roughly in 2001” is failing to produce the genuine expression of apostolic leadership that the church needs to help it become established, to grow, and to mature. If you blog, offer your ideas for interaction and link back here; if not, feel free to enter a long and rambling comment on the matter below. Maybe we’ll discover just what an apostle is these days — and how we’d recognize one.

11 Comments

Given the chaotic circumstances of the past few weeks, I would undoubtedly be quite delighted, if I were one of the heresy hunters or supposedly demonically-inspired judge-and-juror dementors who are being castigated in the Pro-Apostle Press, and warned by the superapostles and their advocates to expect God-Zap-Boomerangs.

But I am not. I’m just some blogger guy who must be pretty much off the radar of the actors of this intense drama. And what right do I have to say anything anyway? I’m not directly affected by it. And, while I have done some studies in the theologies and practices of the Charismatic, Pentecostal, Shepherding, Revivalist, or Restorationist movements, I don’t have much personal involvement in them.

Yet I am affected indirectly by this, because I am part of the Body of Christ, and the Body is suffering from some serious wounds. Also, I have other beliefs, experiences, and expectations that are relevant. Plus, could I suggest this is not about the right to write, but the responsibility to discern? The only real qualifications needed to “Bereanize” a situation are to (1) be a conscientious disciple, (2) who seeks to search the Scriptures, (3) in order to see what things are so. When you go public with your thoughts, though, that’s a different matter. More on that in a moment …

Meanwhile, I must say that I’ve found the past few weeks to be exceptionally disturbing – especially related to the activities of some of the so-called apostles. What some demonstrate is not the language, the attitude, or the familial relationship of healthy spiritual fathers. Instead, I’m hearing, seeing, and witnessing the same things as during my now-decades-long work in the “recovery movement.” And I am shocked. I am angry. I am grieving.

I cannot understand as “fatherly” when men call their spiritual sons and daughters “losers.” These are the words of abusive fathers, who curse their children with labels of lies. They are not acceptable.

I cannot understand as “fatherly” when men issue veiled threats by calling upon God the Father to curse those who question their authority. These are the attitudes of abusive fathers, whose overt authoritarianism and lust for power masks their own insecurities and ineptitudes. They are not acceptable.

I cannot understand as “fatherly” when men seemingly embrace a relationship of engagement and responsibility with a next-generation disciple, and then repudiates it when the disciple has difficulties. These are the actions of abusive fathers, whose self-serving abandonment implants chasms of chaos in the souls of their children. They are not acceptable.

And all this being perpetrated in the name of a Savior who came to end the reign of the Father of All Lies who is the ultimate Destroyer and Soul Murderer? What have we come to … what will we become if we continue on this path?

I know I have more to say. I’m not yet released to say it. I need time to reflect, to fast and pray, to make sure my own spiritual house is in order before stating even more about this situation of our anguish. On Monday, September 22, I will plan to blog about whatever I sense I need to put on the public record. Hopefully, it will deal more with what leadership in this current era should be, than to focus on what it is not, or has not recently been.

In case the date of September 22 is unfamiliar, it commemorates the birthday of Bilbo Baggins, a true father of Middle-earth who not only adopted his orphaned nephew Frodo, but rejoiced in giving away much of his treasure to others, and relatively resisted the evil Ring of Power. If I cannot seem at the moment find a heroic earthly “spiritual father” to learn from in this sad situation, I know I shall at least glean something from this flawed but ultimately faithful character from the heart of J.R.R. Tolkien.

Speaking of Tolkien, in 1969, a young girl asked him to explain “the purpose of life.” Tolkien provided a wondrous, theological answer. He wrote her that “the chief purpose of life, for any one of us, is to increase according to our capacity our knowledge of God by all the means we have, and to be moved by it to praise and thanks. To do as we say in the Gloria in Excelsis. … We praise you, we call you holy, we worship you, we proclaim your glory, we thank you for the greatness of your splendour. And in moments of exaltation we may call on all created things to join in our chorus, speaking on their behalf … all mountains and hills, all orchards and forests, all things that creep and birds on the wing.” (J.R.R. Tolkien’s Sanctifying Myth: Understanding Middle-earth by Bradley J. Birzer, pages 64, 138.)

I pray for the restoration of that kind of spirit of worship, which can lift us all up and bring exaltation to God our Father, in the midst of this current gloom.

The forms of leadership (apostolic or otherwise) which we need to see in the church today?

John 14:6-…I am the way, the truth and the life: no man comes to the father, but through me.

What characterizes this form of leadership?

Matthew 3:17-This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Matthew 11:29-..For I am meek and lowly in heart.
John 5:30-I can of my own self do nothing….I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father who has sent me.
John 17:16-They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
John 14:10-…the words that I speak to you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwells in me, he does the works.
John 6:35-I am the bread of life: he that comes to me shall never hunger; and he that believes on me shall never thirst.
John 6:51-…and that bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
John 8:12…I am the light of the world; he that follows me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
John 10:9-I am the door…and shall go in and out and find pasture.
John 10:11-I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd gives his life for the sheep.
John 12:26-…if any man serve me, him will my Father honor.

How do we recognize leaders?
(See above)

How is their authority derived and exercised?

Derived
John 15:5 I am the vine….without me you can do nothing.
John 5:19-….I say to you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do: for whatever things he does, these also do the Son likewise.

Exercised
Matthew 8:8-10-The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, I say to you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

I have been wondering if God’s intent in all of this was to expose the falseness of this entire system. It is interesting that all of the attempts to cover seem to instead further reveal the inaccuracies of doctrine, beliefs, and practice.

Grace,
This is what I’m thinking as well, or something much along these lines. God always seems to have a bigger fish to fry. This is one of the reasons I’m steering away from Lakeland (do I really need to list the ‘distinguishing marks of a movement of God’ again?) and toward something that’s escaped a lot of notice but deserves some scrutiny. There’s something to the way this came together, and that’s why my attention is diverted there at the moment.

I’m noticing the trend in apostleship is easily muddled and fleeting. No matter what, any true apostle looks like Jesus, the servant who washed his disciple’s feet. I know a guy that oversees my church network for the whole USA. I’ve seen him volunteer to clean the church building that’s his home church and restack chairs when he thought nobody was watching. And when he’s at my ministry school (endorsed by C. Peter Wagner), this unnamed apostle actually looks to me for leadership since I’m an assistant to the director. He’s shown me in word and deed what a true apostle looks like:

A humble servant

And this version of leadership looks like a pyramid upside down, where everybody “under you” is actually above you in terms of value and priority. So the new/pre believers are in a sense at the top of the list.

One of the things that strikes me about those who today claim to be apostles but seem to exhibit primarily controlling rather than caring behaviour is the very fact that they loudly proclaim themselves to be apostles. I can’t imagine that true apostle Paul proudly introducing himself as an apostle whenever he had the chance. I can imagine him introducing himself as a servant of Christ, while humbly recognizing his apostolic ministry as and when appropriate and necessary.

I think in particular of a well-known and somewhat controversial leader here in France. Wherever you see his potter biography, you will read that he was “consecrated to the apostolic ministry” on such and such a date – whatever that means.

Surely what makes one an apostle is when one is recognized to behave in an apostolic way (I realize that needs lots of unpacking, but you can see what I’m getting at) – not simply the fact that one decides to advertise oneself as being such.